Defamation in Ontario: Libel, Slander, and Online Reviews

Your reputation can take years to build and seconds to damage. Whether a former business partner posted a scathing false review, a disgruntled ex-employee is spreading lies on social media, or a local newspaper printed something inaccurate about you, defamation in Ontario is a serious area of civil law that can entitle you to real compensation.

This guide explains the difference between libel and slander, what you need to prove to succeed in a defamation claim, the main defences you will likely face, and how the law is starting to catch up to online reviews and social media posts.

A word upfront: defamation law is highly fact-specific. Statements that look obviously defamatory can turn out to be protected, and vice versa. A lawyer should review your situation before you decide whether to sue — or respond to a claim.

Libel vs. Slander: What Is the Difference?

Defamation is a false statement of fact that harms someone's reputation. Ontario law (and the Libel and Slander Act) distinguishes between two forms:

• Libel — a defamatory statement in permanent form: writing, print, a broadcast, a photograph, or anything else that can be read, viewed, or reproduced. An online review, a social-media post, or a newspaper article all qualify as libel.
• Slander — a defamatory statement in spoken (temporary) form, such as words said at a meeting or over the phone.

The distinction matters in practice. Libel is presumed to cause damage — you generally do not need to prove actual financial loss to win. Slander, in most cases, requires proof of "special damage" (actual, measurable harm) unless the statement falls into a narrow category of words that are so harmful the law presumes damage anyway (for example, falsely accusing someone of a serious crime or of being unfit for their profession).

The Four Elements of a Defamation Claim

To win a defamation case in Ontario, you must establish:

1. The words were defamatory. The statement must tend to lower your reputation in the eyes of reasonable people — it makes them think worse of you.
2. The words referred to you. The statement must be "of and concerning" you. You do not have to be named if a reasonable person familiar with the circumstances would understand the reference.
3. The words were published. "Published" means communicated to at least one person other than you. A private message seen only by you cannot ground a claim.
4. Falsity (in most contexts). Statements of opinion are not defamatory. Only false statements of fact are. Truth is an absolute defence (see below).

Once you establish these elements, the burden shifts to the defendant to raise a defence.

Common Defences to Defamation

Defendants have several well-established defences available:

Truth (Justification)

If the statement is substantially true, the claim fails. This is the most complete defence. The defendant must prove the truth of the statement — the plaintiff does not have to prove falsity.

Fair Comment

Opinions on matters of public interest are protected as "fair comment" if:

• the statement is recognizably opinion (not presented as fact);
• it is based on facts that are true or privileged; and
• an honest person could hold that opinion.

This defence matters enormously for restaurant reviews, film criticism, and commentary on politicians or public figures. It does not protect a reviewer who invents facts.

Qualified Privilege

Certain communications are privileged even if false, provided they are made without malice. Classic examples include references given by an employer, complaints to a regulator, and statements made in legal proceedings. The privilege is "qualified" — if the defendant was motivated by spite or ill will rather than a genuine duty to communicate, the privilege is lost.

Absolute Privilege

Statements made in legislative bodies and court proceedings are completely protected, regardless of motive.

Responsible Communication on Matters of Public Interest

A relatively newer Canadian defence: journalists and others who report on matters of genuine public interest may be protected if they acted responsibly in verifying the story, even if some facts turn out to be wrong. This defence is typically invoked in media contexts, not in ordinary business disputes.

Online Reviews and Social Media Posts

Online defamation is now one of the most common reasons people contact a litigation lawyer. A few points specific to digital content:

Platform responsibility. The review platform itself (Google, Yelp, etc.) is generally not liable for third-party content in Canada. The person who wrote and posted the review is the potential defendant.

Identifying anonymous reviewers. If the poster is anonymous, you may need to bring a court motion to compel the platform to disclose identifying information. This is possible but takes time and cost.

It is still libel. A one-star Google review that falsely states you defrauded customers is libel, not slander. You are not required to prove financial loss.

Screenshot immediately. Evidence of online defamation can disappear. Document the statement, the URL, the date, and the poster's username before taking any other steps.

Think before you send a cease-and-desist. A poorly worded demand letter can backfire, drawing more attention to the statement or triggering a defence based on your own conduct. Have a lawyer review your correspondence strategy first.

Notice Requirements for Some Media Defendants

The Libel and Slander Act imposes strict notice requirements when the defendant is a newspaper or broadcaster. As of writing, a claimant must give written notice of the allegedly defamatory words — and the claim for damages — within a prescribed period after the publication (the exact periods are in the statute and should be verified with a lawyer). Missing this notice requirement can bar your claim. These notice rules generally do not apply to ordinary social-media users or private individuals, but if the defendant is a media outlet, get legal advice quickly.

Damages and Remedies

If you succeed, a court can award:

• General damages — for harm to reputation and feelings, assessed without proof of specific financial loss in libel cases.
• Special damages — quantifiable financial losses, such as lost clients or business.
• Aggravated damages — where the defendant's conduct was particularly high-handed or malicious.
• Punitive damages — in rare cases of extreme misconduct.
• Injunctive relief — a court order requiring the defendant to remove the statement or stop repeating it.

Frequently asked questions